Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:41:16.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE SUPPOSED DILEMMA OF CONCILIATIONISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2015

Stefan Reining
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My aim in this paper is to propose a way to resolve a supposed dilemma currently troubling the debate about rational belief formation in cases of peer disagreement. In section 1, I will introduce the general debate in question as well as the kind of view figuring in the supposed dilemma. In section 2, I will describe how the supposed dilemma arises. In section 3, I will consider the replies that have hitherto been offered and explain in how far these replies should be regarded as unsatisfying. Finally, in sections 4 and 5, I will propose and defend a new reply to the supposed dilemma. This reply consists in rejecting the intuitively appealing view that one should be conciliatory in the relevant kind of case, and in endorsing a more careful position, which respects the intuitions behind conciliationism and which, in contrast to the latter, does not give rise to the kind of dilemma in question.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 305 - 328
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audi, R. 1998. Epistemology. A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. A Rationalist Account of A Priori Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. 2003. A Priori Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007a. ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007b. ‘Does Murphy's Law Apply in Epistemology? Self-Doubt and Rational Ideals.’ In Gendler, T. Szabó and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 2, pp. 3–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2010. ‘Higher-Order Evidence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2013. ‘Epistemic Modesty Defended.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 77–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 2013. ‘A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 98–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. 1982. ‘Utilitarianism and Rationality.’ Analysis, 42: 55–9.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 1987. ‘Evident, but Rationally Unacceptable.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65: 316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. and Elga, A. 2005. ‘I Can't Believe I'm Stupid.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 77–93.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs, 41: 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. 2010. ‘How to Disagree about How to Disagree.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 175–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2006. ‘Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 216–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frances, B. 2010. ‘The Reflective Epistemic Renegade.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 419–63.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2005. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1: 167–96.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. ‘Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 111–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. 2013. ‘Disagreement and the Burdens of Judgment.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 31–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2000. ‘A Priori Knowledge Revisited.’ In Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. (eds), New Essays on the A Priori, pp. 65–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kroon, F. 1983. ‘Rationality and Paradox.’ Analysis, 43: 455–61.Google Scholar
Kroon, F. 1993. ‘Rationality and Epistemic Paradox.’ Synthese, 94: 377–408.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010. ‘What Should We Do When We Disagree?’ In Gendler, T. Szabó and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 3, pp. 274–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1971. ‘Immodest Inductive Methods.’ Philosophy of Science, 38: 54–63.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 2002. ‘Rational Dilemmas.’ Analysis, 62: 11–16.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1990. ‘Ideal Rationality and Handwaving.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 68: 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schechter, J. 2013. ‘Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure.’ Philosophical Studies, 163: 429–52.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. 1987. ‘Anti-Expertise, Instability, and Rational Choice.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 65: 301–15.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. forthcoming. ‘Rationality's Fixed Point (or: in Defense of Right Reason).’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2013. ‘Disagreements, Philosophical and Otherwise.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 54–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2007. The Nature of Normativity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, M. 2007. ‘More on the Self-Undermining Argument.’ Online blog entry; http://mattweiner.net/blog/archives/000781.html.Google Scholar